budget surpluses, you guys did a great job. i look at this budget and it seems to be exactly the opposite. with all sincerity, thank you. with a great job. but a look at this budget and it is exactly the opposite. record increases in spending, the biggest peacetime deficit in history, no effort to address entitlements which have grown significantly more challenging. wouldn't you call this that anti-clinton budget? >> no, i'm very proud of the work i did in the clinton administration and i point out one of the reasons spending was falling as a percentage of gdp was the economy was growing so fast because we had a good fiscal policy that promoted competent and economic growth. if you look at the projections today, we are projecting the retirement of the baby boom and

we see more people claiming their benefits. >> i want to get to that projection. it is part of the reality that even if we cut spending in the policies we are making, as we pay the policies that are due, there are areas where spending goes up. i don't think any of us want to be saying people should not be able to collect social security benefits when they are 65. that and medicare for people who are retiring are driving aggregate spending levels. on the discretionary side, we are cutting spending. >> which is why we are baffled you haven't tackled entitlements driving our long-range projections of the cliff. speaking of those long-range projections, i look at the claims you are reducing the deficit in the long term. we have enough trouble projecting 10 quarters and the future without rejecting 10 years. but look at when you are doing and you take the current year's funding of $165 million and pay

for operations in afghanistan, including the surge, you then project it out for 10 years that this represents your current policy base line. you then estimates place the $50 billion for the war from 2013 to 2021 and count the lower funding relative to this current policy baseline as a $ 1.1 trillion spending cut. you take the related debt service -- are you guys really planning to stay in iraq at current levels and continue the surge? >> the budget reflects our withdrawal from iraq. >> you are claiming that as savings. you count everything below that as savings.

>> we're almost at a time. the overseas contingency operation account is something that really solved the problem that the obama administration inherited. there was no orderly way to fund or operations. supplemental appropriations were very much viewed as being a way of not having honest budgeting. >> that an intellectually dishonest way of presenting the budget, particularly when the other part is $819 billion of tax increases. >> i would like that in writing because i would love to hear the answer. >> you and the president should be commended for crafting a $1.1 trillion dollar -- $1.1 trillion budget that targets innovation and education. prior to congress, served in the

california legislature we've made it tough races like eliminating pell grants for summer school having said that, i want to take a moment to draw attention to the choices made in the continuing resolution that will be debated this week. not only does the spending plan a devastating cuts to critical programs families depend on to get back on their feet but the continuing resolution would result in lost jobs of 1300 police officers, 2400 firefighters, and 16,000 private-sector construction jobs from cutting from the federal building fund. the most promising new source of economic growth is in our public infrastructure system, for roads, to bridges, to broadbent to a new energy grid. i am pleased to see the budget invest in these areas that will spur job creation. based on this, what are the potential members of jobs that

will be created by what un the president are proposing? >> thank you. i cannot give you a specific job forecast. we have all learned there is uncertainty in projections when you get to a pinpoint number. when you build roads, when you build ports, when you build the infrastructure we need to be competitive in the future, it puts men and women to work in real time. in our surface transportation proposal, we propose $50 billion be done at the beginning to get a head start and to get people to work. i would be happy to get back to you with some notion of what that means in terms of specific jobs, but it is clearly a lot of jobs. >> i would appreciate that. with the cuts they're taking in the defense part of the budget, i believe we can find additional

savings. i wanted to ask -- as i understand it, there is nearly 270 bases in germany 65 years after world war two ended. i want to know if the administration has conducted a savings estimate on closing these bases? they probably no longer serve a strategic value and of some of them do, i would question if whether 200 of them do. >> these are the kinds of questions the department and its needs to ask, not just about europe but about its operations everywhere. what we need for our current and future defense and what can we live without? i cannot prejudge the answer to this question by putting in this budget the first to bring in the department of defense backed into the normal budget trade- offs where we say no real growth, that is a cut in terms of what you can buy and it means you have to start doing less things, that's a step in the direction of asking a lot of very hard questions. >> i wanted to thank you for

your comments earlier. being in california, we hear that all the time from the tech community, the need for that to be long term. thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you for your good work. i do appreciate it. what i have a problem with this this budget. it was suggested budgets reflect the priorities and values of those that present them. in this case, it is true that this is a case being made by the administration. one big government and more government. the bottom line is this doubles the debt in 10 years and is fiscally irresponsible. the decisions we make in congress are about what kind of money are we going to pull out of people's pockets and give to someone else. i find it reprehensible we continue to talk about investments and other things when we are pulling money from

people's pockets to try to give it to somebody else. the most important thing we can do is allow money to stay in their own pockets. it is the american people's money, not congress or the white house. i want to get very specific. this budget is a down payment was one of the things i believe you said yesterday. a down payment on mortgaging our future. it exacerbates the problem, it doesn't actually solve it. i want to talk about part of your testimony on page 6. "to stay on a path for sustainable deficits -- that seems like an oxymoron to me. we are paying $600 million a day just in interest. i would appreciate at a future date to please try to find -- try to define sustainable deficit. to the average american and to me, it doesn't make sense. we have no sustainable deficit.

you say on the order of 3% of gdp, we make tough choices to identify more than a trillion dollars in savings. two-thirds from spending reductions. where does the other third come from? as i understand it, it is from tax increases, is it not? >> i'm happy to answer all questions. >> just the last one. >> the net savings come from a lot of provisions but a lot of it comes from the provision that would pay for the alternative minimum tax. that would reduce -- >> a significant portion does come from tax increases. >> a third. >> you have a statement about federal-billion pay freeze. i find this to be terribly disingenuous. when barack obama took office to now, we have 145,000 additional federal workers. to suggest pay has been frozen is not an accurate statement. their increases and bonuses and others, we've dramatically increased the federal payroll.

the budget being proposed, when you say pay freeze, does that mean expenditures on payroll will go up or stay the same? >> it means people are not going to get a cost-of-living adjustment right now. >> the line item for going forward -- the total, will that go up or be sustained? we will obviously have to pay the people who are hiring. for an individual federal worker -- they'll have to see their pay go up. >> for the american taxpayer, their expenses going to go up. >> we want people to work at the airports -- >> you already have -- [crosstalk] >> you have 65,000 tsa agents. how many more do you need? >> as we put new technology at

the airports, we needed to hire people to work that equipment. >> you have 65,000. i need to know how many more people going to take. >> it is not worth buying equipment we don't have people to operate. >> thank you. i would love to year -- would love to answer your other questions. >> if you could get to the gentleman in writing because we want to watch your time. >> you can watch this and other events online on our web site, c-span.org. jack lew served during the clinton and obama administration that was chief of staff to president obama. >> if you ask how many are self- described libertarian, depending on which poll you look at, you might get between 10% and 15%. if you ask people like if you give them a battery of questions

that different ideological things like the believe an ax or do you believe in why, you track this to different ideologies and depending on which poll you are looking at, you get to 30% of americans calling themselves libertarian. if you ask the following question -- are you economically conservative but socially liberal, you get over half of americans saying that is what they are. that said, just because people say these things, it does not they really believe them. if you ask most americans if you want smaller government, they say yes. if you ask if they want government to spend less money, they say yes. but they don't want to cut anything specific on the budget, so it's not clear if they really believe it. based on the best they i have writing this book, somewhere as low as 10% and as high as 30%. libertarians, if they were conscious and political, they could be a big movement. it could have a lot of

influence. for various reasons, they are not organized. >> a political primer in libertarianism and what you might not know, tonight at 8:00. >> on monday, the president announced nominations for the defense secretary and cia director. here are remarks from the john brennan. >> mr. president, thank you for your kind remarks and thank you for the trust you placed in me. i have had the honor of knowing and working with john brennan for the last 20 years. we have worked particularly closely the last three years. john brennan is an intelligence professional with deep experience in our business.

a public servant with extraordinary dedication. thought a man of deep integrity. with the senate confirmation, i know he will be an outstanding director of the central intelligence agency. john started his career at cia and spent nearly a quarter- century. so this is a homecoming for john. on behalf of the talented and dedicated men and women, it is my deep water to save welcome home. >> mr. president, it is indeed a tremendous honor to be nominated to be director of the central intelligence agency. the women and men of the cia are among the